Mordred

I think you missed the point. The point is your better off studying the math. Not the pop media type hype books. They are typically written for the novice as an interest, without really teaching how the models work.

The directional antennas is the second formula. You must include the gain factor. In other words G=etc. I'll dig for an example under Yagi unidirectional antennas

You know this information is already available. Your HAM radio booklet should have the calcs. [latex]P_d=\frac{P_tG_t}{4\pi R^2}[/latex] [latex]G=\frac{max- radiated -power of -actual -antenna-directional -gain}{radiation -intensity- of omnidirectional -antenna -of -same power}[/latex] P_ t is peak intensity. The recieving antenna only captures a portion of the effective power per square foot. The effective capture area of received power is power density* effective capture area. You can crunch the numbers but you will find you will be dealing with microwatts if not Pico watts at the range your talking from orbit. Not counting stratosphere effects. Then you would also require an immense capture area. Far greater than what is mobile.

Yes we have numerous examples where predictions indicate possibilities beyond our technology

Your initial post has zero time. But with a changing state. You must have time for that to occur. To quote... "While number 4 has the maximum velocity (light speed) that also results in no space and no time for that level of universe. The states are the same for the universe in both situations." The arrow of time is a hypothetical function of entropy. Time reversal symmetry is the typical application. It's more an alternative mathematics modelling. In your time reversal you would have a state of low entropy reducing to a lower entropy state on the reversal side. Yet you have zero degrees of freedom at stage 1. You can't have less entropy than zero.... Time reversal symmetry will not work as you described it. Once again this post breaks down to a word salad of wording without understanding the material you read. I imagine you read Brian Greene's book that doesn't show any of the finer details such as the math. Then figured you could simply adapt it. ( unfortunately your not the first. On some forums Brian Green is one of the more problematic references. To countless misconceptions) Though his "peer reviewed papers" are great he has several good ones on string theory. This isn't unusual any general public pop media books on Cosmology all inherently mislead. The true understanding comes from studying the math. Not the wording.

In regards to 1 and 4. " How do you define a rate of change without time?". How can those states change without time?. In term On section 2 same question. Plus how would you define time in the opposite direction? number 2 is poorly worded, otherwise. Strange already mentioned the other key areas

Yea but the reciever would have to be on freefall into the BH. Defeats the purpose.

Come to think of it, I never did figure out how many degrees of freedom the inflaton field has. Lol something to research (yay)

No prob I added a few touch ups. The above doesn't introduce any new physics. However if I was presenting a new idea. The above still falls short of what is required for Peer review level. 1) I need the necessary references 2) Any equations not well known, I would need to show the steps on how I derived the equation. 3) I would need to locate applicable datasets and compare those datasets against my equations. 4) I would need to include how my equations compare to those already in use. 5) I would need to find a means to test my hypothesis. PS very few people reading the above post on this forum will fully understand it. The purpose was to show a few metric examples. If I were working on that as a model I would have included the EFE and lie algebra in group GUT theories. Also the Fermi-Dirac and Bose-Einstien equations(I opted not to, in order to keep it to a manageable length)

The universe doesn't care how we measure it and it will exist long after were gone. The problem is how we measure the universe must match observable data. That data includes observer influences such as redshift, Let's put it another way. The problem isn't with your idea of kinetic energy being involved. In fact one can model Early universe dynamics using kinetic energy. However you also require potential energy. The methods involving both are numerous. In the FLRW metric one can use the scalar equation of state. [math]w = \frac{\frac{1}{2}\dot{\phi}^2 - V(\phi)}{\frac{1}{2}\dot{\phi}^2 + V(\phi)} .[/math] [latex]\dot{\phi}[/latex] is kinetic energy the dot is a derivative of time. [latex]V\phi[/latex] is potential energy. The above works when comparing vacuum energy density regions, inflation uses the above. However the above deals strictly with scalar values, does nothing to define momentum and vectors. When you include radiation you want to use the equation of state for relativistic radiation. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_state_(cosmology) The FLRW metric already defined a homogeneous and isotropic fluid. now to add vectors one useful tool that works well with the EFE is the variational principle. This also leads to how geodesics are defined. Via the principle of least action.. This will take me a bit to latex lol bear with me. Variational Principle. A particle with position [latex]\overrightarrow{x}[/latex] in a gravitational field is associated with a kinetic energy [latex]\frac{1}{2}m\dot{x}^2[/latex] and potential energy [latex]-mg\dot{x}[/latex] the difference between the two is called the Langrangian [latex]\L(\overrightarrow{x},\dot{\overrightarrow{x}})[/latex] We can integrate the Langrange along the trajectory of the particle [latex]\gamma[/latex] to form the action [latex]S=\int_{\gamma}dt\L=\int_{\gamma}dt(\frac{1}{2}m\dot{\overrightarrow{x}}^2+mg\overrightarrow{x})[/latex] The equation of motion is obtained by finding the stationary point of the action [latex]\delta S=0[/latex] This gives rise to the Euler-Langrange equation. [latex]\frac{\partial\L}{\partial\overrightarrow{x}}=\frac{d}{dt}\frac{\partial\L}{\partial\dot{\overrightarrow{x}}}[/latex] There I've provided some direction on how you can go about defining your model via kinetic energy. Now to add some details. 1) you won't need to define curvature during the GUT epock 10^-43 seconds. The reason is the volume is far too miniscule for curvature to matter. 2) you can define scalar vacuum energy in terms of quantum fluctuations via the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and Schrodingers equations. This is where your spin foam enters the picture. Now in terms of a non math descriptive of the GUT epock. This period is in a state of thermal equilibrium, any reactions that occur quickly decay. This epock can be accurately described by its temperature and is dominated by quantum fluctuations. Photons/ anti photon pairs have sufficient energy to form Quarks and gluons. A radiation dominant universe will expand as the gravitational potential is insufficient to cause a collapse. The acceleration equation is given as [latex]\frac{\ddot{a}}{a}=-\frac{4\pi G\rho}{3c^2}(\rho c^2+3p)[/latex] This leads to [latex]H^2=\frac{\dot{a}}{a}=\frac{8\pi G\rho}{3c^2}-\frac{kc^2p}{R_c^2a^2}[/latex] where k is the curvature constant. Which during the GUT epock can be largely ignored. Via the equation of state [latex]p=w\rho c^2[/latex] [latex]\frac{\dot{a}}{a}=-\frac{1}{2}H^2(1+3w)[/latex] for radiation w=-1/3 matter w=0 From this we can see a radiation dominant universe will expand. In fact it will accelerate when [latex]w<-1/3(p<-\rho^2/3)[/latex] When the volume sufficiently increases thereby reducing the temperature quarks, gluons and potentially the Higgs boson can drop out of thermal equilibrium. This process may potentially result in inflation as a phase change. The strong force undergoes symmetry breaking. The simplest version of inflation is via the inflaton which then dominates expansion. The inflaton is given by [latex]\varphi[/latex], with potential [latex]V\varphi[/latex] The pressure of the field is [latex]p(\varphi)=\frac{1/2\dot{\varphi}^2}{\hbar c+V\varphi}[/latex] total energy by [latex]E(\varphi)=\frac{1/2\dot{\varphi}}{\hbar c+V\varphi}[/latex] with equation of state. [latex]\frac{1/2\dot{\varphi}^2/\hbar c-V\varphi}{1/2\dot{\varphi}/\hbar c+V\varphi}[/latex] Probably not the best description, but it's an example. To do a better job I would define this in terms of quage groups and GUT theories. Further including more mathematics. ( but I'm not trying to create a model, only providing some guidance and direction) Hope this helps

Just be prepared, Just covering that will take some prep work.

My point is when you apply pressure to a point you have compression. If the pressure is going from a point radiating outward you have expansion. Positive pressure is commonly used in the first case, negative pressure in the latter case. Now here is the problem with using just pressure to try and define gravity. The amount of pressure exerted by different particle species vary. Relativistic radiation (photons, neutrinos) exert more pressure than dust. (Dust =protons,neutrons etc) matter. In point of detail matter has extremely negligible pressure influence. So to use a more accurate terminology to describe curvature use the terms mass/energy density. This way the particle species variations are accounted for. Remember space time curvature is a measure of energy/mass gradient. Yes this cause pressure gradients as well albeit by differing amounts depending on the state being described and the particle contributors. You are starting to realize mass is a relative measurement. So I'll let you study that in greater detail. It's extremely important in kinematics. Later on I'll describe 10-43 seconds for you to provide you with a solid example on terminlogy and math. I need time to properly formulate that section I won't try to cover prior to 10-43 seconds as that would be based on speculation.

Why does your image include fabric??? " blocked point of universes fabric." This is precisely the type of terminology I've been consistently correcting you on. Secondly mass is resistance to inertia. Period. If you ever want or hope to learn the mathematics. You need to use and understand the terminology association's with those mathematics. Particularly if you ever want to learn Hamilton and how it correlates to "action and moment mapping. Both of which are involved in the LQC approach. What kind of motion? What is causing the pressure? Is pressure the only factor? What about shear stress? What about energy/mass density? Why does it take more energy to move more massive objects and change its velocity? Yet they both fall at the same rate? Why do certain particles react to some energy fields but not others? How would kinetic energy account for this? Why have you never included the term " potential energy"? Why do certain particles exhibit electromagnetic properties but others don't? Why is it when you move two quarks farther apart the strength of attraction between them increases and doesn't decrease such as in gravity or electromagnetism.? Why does gravity exhibit spin 2 characteristics while the Higgs field is spin zero, the photon spin (electromagnetic) spin 1 while fermions are fractional spin? What spin would kinetic energy be? When you throw a ball, is it following a geodesic? These are questions that the standard models can answer. Can your model do so? How is observer defined, why does a wavefunction collapse when observed? QM. "In quantum mechanics, wave function collapse is said to occur when a wave function initially in a superposition of several eigenstates appears to reduce to a single eigenstate (by "observation" How is observer defined in this case? Why does the Heisenberg uncertainty principle states that the position and the velocity of an object cannot both be measured exactly, at the same time, even in theory. ? How does this relate to your spin foam via the Schrodinger formulas. ? The problem is you keep trying to redesign physics to suit yourself when you don't have a solid grasp of the basics. As such you keep using incorrect terminology and jumping to conclusions. Which the materials I supplied should have corrected. ( a vast majority of my posts have been terminology corrections) As such the quoted section reads as a word salad. The vector directions are off, with the way you described it. How do you deform a volume ? Don't you mean the pressure on a point stop its compression, not expansion.

What makes you so positive mass is a thing? It's a measured property. Just like length or depth are measured properties. You keep trying to make substance out of properties. Properties are not things with its own substance. Neither are relations of interactions This includes force, or charge, color, flavor, Spin foam, spacetime. Time, volume, entropy. They are measured properties, and measured relations not Things. The sooner you learn that the better, measurements are observer dependant. This is the understanding GR gave us. space is volume, volume is a property Time is a property of rate of change/duration. The relation between two properties don't make a thing of some mysterious MATERIAL. Energy is a property, mass is a property. They don't exist without having something to measure. They also cannot be separated from each other, as mass requires energy. Just like temperature requires density and interactions I would have thought the ideal gas laws would have taught you that properties can often depend on other properties. Measurable properties of particles Mass/energy Frequency Charge,color,flavor isospin parity Spin Decays Products Lifetime Scattering Cross-section Resonance Resonance width and lifetime Perhaps you need to study a list of properties https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_property

The neutron for one. In that it is electromagnetically neutral All particles have wave particle duality. Not all particles interact with the electromagnetic force. Ie Neutrinos. http://www.fnal.gov/pub/today/SpecialROWMINOS111408.html Particle spin and particle charge are two different properties.

Don't be mislead the term foam is only describing the probability amplitude shape. It's not a material thing but how a particles position changes in a given moment of time. [latex]\psi_0(x,t)[/latex] [latex]\psi [/latex] is the probability amplitude. The Schrodinger wave functions gives the probability of locations for a particles position at all times. This is what spin foam is also describing. Or rather more accurately its describing the Hamiltonian of action. in terms of moment action of lie groups and their degrees of freedom. Such as the U(1) group. Think of it as probability maps. As these moment maps involve Euler Langrene I'll include that. [latex]\frac{\partial L}{\partial x} - \frac{d}{dt} \frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{x}} = 0[/latex]. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_(physics) Spin foam isn't a material thing just another modelling system. Gotta love these catchy catchy names. They always mislead the public Very few people readily accept DM and DE, your not alone in that crowd. The problem is observational evidence strongly supports them both. You keep missing the part... a photon has no rest mass.( invarient mass). It has a total energy equivalent to inertial mass. [latex] E^2-(pc)^2=(mc)^2[/latex] [latex]e=mc^2[/latex] is only valid for particles at rest. Mass isn't an absolute value how one measures mass is OBSERVER dependant just as how one measures energy is OBSERVER dependant. Or how one measures wavelength is also observer dependant. Look closely at the relations between wavelength and energy. [latex]\frac{\Delta_f}{f} = \frac{\lambda}{\lambda_o} = \frac{v}{c}=\frac{E_o}{E}=\frac{hc}{\lambda_o} \frac{\lambda}{hc}[/latex] Cosmological redshift is given by. [latex]1+Z=\frac{\lambda}{\lambda_o} or 1+Z=\frac{\lambda-\lambda_o}{\lambda_o}[/latex] Gravitation redshift by. [latex]\frac{\lambda}{\lambda_o}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{(1 - \frac{2GM}{r c^2})}}[/latex] Doppler redshift is [latex]f=\frac{c+v_r}{c+v_s}f_o[/latex]

Photons have no "rest mass" they do have momentum. If you don't believe photons can cause pressure then explain how optical tweezers work. They do use laser beams to move bacteria etc. What about solar sails? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_tweezers The problem is just because something doesn't make sense to you. You assume it's wrong. News flash it makes sense to those that studied it in enough detail What you accept doesn't matter, Scientists around the globe accept the experimental evidence to support any theory. Not intuition, or personal logic. No theory is ever accepted enough to become concordance, without extensive experimental evidence. For example none of Einstein's theories was fully accepted when he first published them. The experimental tests that came later validated them. Time dilation isn't easy to accept. LCDM wasn't accepted at first glance either, there were at one time over 30 competing varients to it prior to WMAP and Planck data. LCDM was found to be the best fit, to observational data. Killing models such as CHDM, trespace, MOND, Spin-Torsion model by Poplowskii, LHDM, etc, the Ekryptotic model is taking big hits due to Planck. QM took a big hit when it was determined that the formula [latex]E=\frac{\hbar w}{2}[/latex] Which relates to your quantum foam leads to 120 orders of magnitude too much energy. Then a second hit with that link showing the tests for quantum foam. Nowadays it's no longer considered in its original form and has been adapted to spin foam by LQC. As far as inflation goes, none of the original inflation models are currently considered good fits. This includes chaotic eternal inflation. They suffer from "Runaway inflation". The encyclopedia Inflationaris dropped chaotic eternal inflation as being a good fit in its last update. It was included in previous versions. The last two Planck data sets support single scalar inflationary models. This could potentially narrow down 70+ viable models down to a mere 7. particle entanglement wasn't accepted at first either, now we have particle entanglement diodes. http://www.toshiba.eu/eu/Cambridge-Research-Laboratory/Quantum-Information-Group/Quantum-Information-Group-Publications/ they also have a single photon detector, called a quantum dot detector. As far as light being made up of photons, we can image the separate particles and show the wave particle duality. http://www.iflscience.com/physics/researchers-image-wave-particle-duality-light-first-time-ever The pop media version doesn't properly explain how it was done. http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/150302/ncomms7407/full/ncomms7407.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=tumblr Here is the paper.

I posted this in another thread but it suits here. As this is an example of how Lorentz transformations is derived. note you have coordinates. What you posted cannot describe relativity of simultaneaty as you haven't included coordinates. ( you've only included the time coordinates) Neither have you explained as to how you arrived at that equation. (How did you derive it). Did you just put letters together without substance? Lorentz transformation. First two postulates. 1) the results of movement in different frames must be identical 2) light travels by a constant speed c in a vacuum in all frames. Consider 2 linear axes x (moving with constant velocity and [latex]\acute{x}[/latex] (at rest) with x moving in constant velocity v in the positive [latex]\acute{x}[/latex] direction. Time increments measured as a coordinate as dt and [latex]d\acute{t}[/latex] using two identical clocks. Neither [latex]dt,d\acute{t}[/latex] or [latex]dx,d\acute{x}[/latex] are invariant. They do not obey postulate 1. A linear transformation between primed and unprimed coordinates above in space time ds between two events is [latex]ds^2=c^2t^2=c^2dt-dx^2=c^2\acute{t}^2-d\acute{x}^2[/latex] Invoking speed of light postulate 2. [latex]d\acute{x}=\gamma(dx-vdt), cd\acute{t}=\gamma cdt-\frac{dx}{c}[/latex] Where [latex]\gamma=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-(\frac{v}{c})^2}}[/latex] Time dilation dt=proper time ds=line element since [latex]d\acute{t}^2=dt^2[/latex] is invariant. an observer at rest records consecutive clock ticks seperated by space time interval [latex]dt=d\acute{t}[/latex] she receives clock ticks from the x direction separated by the time interval dt and the space interval dx=vdt. [latex]dt=d\acute{t}^2=\sqrt{dt^2-\frac{dx^2}{c^2}}=\sqrt{1-(\frac{v}{c})^2}dt[/latex] so the two inertial coordinate systems are related by the lorentz transformation [latex]dt=\frac{d\acute{t}}{\sqrt{1-(\frac{v}{c})^2}}=\gamma d\acute{t}[/latex] So the time interval dt is longer than interval [latex]d\acute{t}[/latex] The above is what I would expect to see when one presents his own equation. The above isn't a full derivitave. Several missing steps. It was for another post. However it provides a better explanation of the Lorentz transformations than merely posting a formula. If your not using Lorentz then you need to define the coordinate transformation rules. Here is relativity of simultaneaty coordinate transformation in Lorentz. [latex]\acute{t}=\frac{t-vx/c^2}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}[/latex] [latex]\acute{x}=\frac{x-vt}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}[/latex] [latex]\acute{y}=y[/latex] [latex]\acute{z}=z[/latex]

The shortest path is a geodesic. Geodesics are defined by the principle of least action. Your not going to be able to avoid the energy density relations of curvature "At such small scales of time and space, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle allows energy to briefly decay into particles and antiparticles and then annihilate without violating physical conservation laws. As the scale of time and space being discussed shrinks, the energy of the virtual particles increases. According to Einstein's theory of general relativity, energy curves space-time. This suggests thatat sufficiently small scalesthe energy of these fluctuations would be large enough to cause significant departures from the smooth space-time seen at larger scales, giving space-time a "foamy" character." Quantum foam. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_foam Here is the problem tests of quantum foam show space as smooth not lumpy. At least to the Planck scale. http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/04/searching-for-a-quantum-foam-bubbling-through-the-universe/

How is geodesic of deformation defined ? Geodesic follows the principle of least action. [latex]\mathcal{L}[/latex] is known as the Lagrangian density. The Lagrangian density is divided into two parts, the density for the orbiting particle [latex]\mathcal{L}_p[/latex] and the density [latex] \mathcal{L}_e [/latex] of the gravitational field generated by all other particles including those comprising the earth, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theoretical_motivation_for_general_relativity

The loop Quantum gravity article should answer that. Google spin foam. Basically it's a coordinate map of probability amplitudes. It's not intended to state space time is a substance made out of foam. It is a coordinate map of specific actions. In particular wavefunctions. Spin foam is the more modern form of quantum foam. Pop media articles tend to refer to it as a substance. It's not. Google quantum harmonic oscillator, Heisenburg uncertainty principle, De Broglies wavelength, Schrodingers equation and see how Planck length is defined. Another useful link is Google zero point energy.

Metrics don't cause anything. Metrics is mathematics not a thing. That's the point you miss.In order to have a metric you need something to measure. In order to have any interaction you need two or more objects or particles. Metrics only describe interactions, they don't cause interactions. Space time curvature results from stress energy density. I've already posted the relations to energy density and pressure. As well as included a hydrodynamic coverage of GR in the master geodesic article

I agree, if your making claims you need to back them up with the math. Other than that I'm tired of repeating corrections. Again we come back to " How is the metric defined and measured". You keep thinking a metric can cause ... a metric isn't a physical thing. It's only mathematics. Space time metrics is a coordinate system. A coordinate system does not cause motion.

I simply placed your formula into latex. Spell check placed the capital. You still haven't shown how you derived the equation. Nor shown how this relates to Lorentz transformation

Might be an indicator